Search

Introduction: Chemotherapy (CT) is commonly used as an adjuvant treatment for women with early breast cancer (BC). However, not all patients benefit from CT, while all are exposed to its short- and long-term toxicity. The Oncotype DX® test assesses cancer-related gene expression to estimate the risk of BC recurrence and predict the benefit of chemotherapy. The aim of this study was to estimate, from the French National Health Insurance (NHI) perspective, the cost-effectiveness of the Oncotype DX® test compared to standard of care (SoC; involving clinicopathological risk assessment only) among women with early, hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative BC considered at high clinicopathological risk of recurrence. Methods: Clinical outcomes and costs were estimated over a lifetime horizon based on a two-component model that comprised a short-term decision tree representing the adjuvant treatment choice guided by the therapeutic decision support strategy (Oncotype DX® test or SoC) and a Markov model to capture long-term outcomes. Results: In the base case, the Oncotype DX® test reduced CT use by 55.2% and resulted in 0.337 incremental quality-adjusted life-years gained and cost savings of €3,412 per patient, compared with SoC. Being more effective and less costly than SoC, Oncotype DX® testing was the dominant strategy. Discussion: Widespread implementation of Oncotype DX® testing would improve patient care, provide equitable access to more personalized medicine, and bring cost savings to the health system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

IntroductionChemotherapy (CT) is commonly used as an adjuvant treatment for women with early breast cancer (BC). However, not all patients benefit from CT, while all are exposed to its short- and long-term toxicity. The Oncotype DX® test assesses cancer-related gene expression to estimate the risk of BC recurrence and predict the benefit of chemotherapy. The aim of this study was to estimate, from the French National Health Insurance (NHI) perspective, the cost-effectiveness of the Oncotype DX® test compared to standard of care (SoC; involving clinicopathological risk assessment only) among women with early, hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative BC considered at high clinicopathological risk of recurrence.MethodsClinical outcomes and costs were estimated over a lifetime horizon based on a two-component model that comprised a short-term decision tree representing the adjuvant treatment choice guided by the therapeutic decision support strategy (Oncotype DX® test or SoC) and a Markov model to capture long-term outcomes.ResultsIn the base case, the Oncotype DX® test reduced CT use by 55.2% and resulted in 0.337 incremental quality-adjusted life-years gained and cost savings of €3,412 per patient, compared with SoC. Being more effective and less costly than SoC, Oncotype DX® testing was the dominant strategy.DiscussionWidespread implementation of Oncotype DX® testing would improve patient care, provide equitable access to more personalized medicine, and bring cost savings to the health system.

The management of patients with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer has changed dramatically with use of the 21-gene Recurrence Score® (RS) Assay. While the utility of the assay was initially demonstrated among node-negative patients, recent studies have also demonstrated the assay’s prognostic and predictive value in node-positive patients. In Canada, the RS assay is reimbursed by provincial health insurance plans, but not all provinces have approved the use of the assay for patients with node-positive disease. Here, we provide an overview of the clinical factors that influence physician recommendation of the RS assay and, alternatively, the impact of the RS assay on patient treatment decisions in Canada. We performed a comprehensive review of the impact of the assay upon physician treatment decisions and cost in node-positive breast cancer patients within Canada and other countries. Furthermore, we evaluated biomarkers that can predict the RS result, in addition to other genomic assays that predict recurrence risk among node-positive patients. Overall, the 21-gene RS assay was shown to be a cost-effective tool that significantly reduced the use of chemotherapy in node-positive breast cancer patients in Canada.

Background: The use of CGP in guiding treatment decisions in aNSCLC with acquired resistance to ALK TKIs is questionable. Methods: We prospectively assessed the impact of CGP on the decision-making process in ALK-rearranged aNSCLC patients following progression on 2nd/3rd-generation ALK TKIs. Physician's choice of the most recommended next-line systemic treatment (NLST) was captured before and after receival of CGP results; the percentage of cases in which the NLST recommendation has changed was assessed along with the CGP turnaround time (TAT). Patients were divided into groups: patients in whom the NLST was initiated after (group 1) and before (group 2) receival of the CGP results. Time-to-treatment discontinuation (TTD) and overall survival (OS) with NLST were compared between the groups. Results: In 20 eligible patients (median [m]age 63 years [range, 40-89], females 75%, adenocarcinoma 100%, failure of alectinib 90%, FoundationOne Liquid CDx 80%), CGP has altered NLST recommendation in 30% of cases. CGP findings were as follows: ALK mutations 30% (l1171X 10%, G1202R, L1196M, G1269A, G1202R+l1171N+E1210K 5% each), CDKN2A/B mutation/loss 10%, c-met amplification 5%. CGP mTAT was 2.9 weeks [IQR, 2.4-4.4]. mTTD was 11.3 months (95% CI, 2.1-not reached [NR]) and 5.4 months (95% CI, 2.0-NR) in groups 1 and 2, respectively (p-0.34). mOS was 13.2 months (95% CI, 2.9-NR) and 13.0 months (95% CI, 6.0-NR) in groups 1 and 2, respectively (p-0.86). Conclusion: CGP has a significant impact on the decision-making process in ALK-rearranged aNSCLC following progression on 2nd/3rd-generation ALK TKIs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BackgroundThe use of CGP in guiding treatment decisions in aNSCLC with acquired resistance to ALK TKIs is questionable.MethodsWe prospectively assessed the impact of CGP on the decision-making process in ALK-rearranged aNSCLC patients following progression on 2nd/3rd-generation ALK TKIs. Physician’s choice of the most recommended next-line systemic treatment (NLST) was captured before and after receival of CGP results; the percentage of cases in which the NLST recommendation has changed was assessed along with the CGP turnaround time (TAT). Patients were divided into groups: patients in whom the NLST was initiated after (group 1) and before (group 2) receival of the CGP results. Time-to-treatment discontinuation (TTD) and overall survival (OS) with NLST were compared between the groups.ResultsIn 20 eligible patients (median [m]age 63 years [range, 40-89], females 75%, adenocarcinoma 100%, failure of alectinib 90%, FoundationOne Liquid CDx 80%), CGP has altered NLST recommendation in 30% of cases. CGP findings were as follows: ALK mutations 30% (l1171X 10%, G1202R, L1196M, G1269A, G1202R+l1171N+E1210K 5% each), CDKN2A/B mutation/loss 10%, c-met amplification 5%. CGP mTAT was 2.9 weeks [IQR, 2.4-4.4]. mTTD was 11.3 months (95% CI, 2.1-not reached [NR]) and 5.4 months (95% CI, 2.0-NR) in groups 1 and 2, respectively (p-0.34). mOS was 13.2 months (95% CI, 2.9-NR) and 13.0 months (95% CI, 6.0-NR) in groups 1 and 2, respectively (p-0.86).ConclusionCGP has a significant impact on the decision-making process in ALK-rearranged aNSCLC following progression on 2nd/3rd-generation ALK TKIs.

The management of patients with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer has changed dramatically with use of the 21-gene Recurrence Score® (RS) Assay. While the utility of the assay was initially demonstrated among node-negative patients, recent studies have also demonstrated the assay's prognostic and predictive value in node-positive patients. In Canada, the RS assay is reimbursed by provincial health insurance plans, but not all provinces have approved the use of the assay for patients with node-positive disease. Here, we provide an overview of the clinical factors that influence physician recommendation of the RS assay and, alternatively, the impact of the RS assay on patient treatment decisions in Canada. We performed a comprehensive review of the impact of the assay upon physician treatment decisions and cost in node-positive breast cancer patients within Canada and other countries. Furthermore, we evaluated biomarkers that can predict the RS result, in addition to other genomic assays that predict recurrence risk among node-positive patients. Overall, the 21-gene RS assay was shown to be a cost-effective tool that significantly reduced the use of chemotherapy in node-positive breast cancer patients in Canada. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The molecular signature response classifier (MSRC) is a blood-based precision medicine test that predicts nonresponders to tumor necrosis factor-ɑ inhibitors (TNFi) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) so that patients with a molecular signature of non-response to TNFi can be directed to a treatment with an alternative mechanism of action. This study evaluated decision choice and treatment outcomes resulting from MSRC-informed treatment selection within a real-world cohort. Therapy selection by providers was informed by MSRC results for 73.5% (277/377) of patients. When MSRC results were not incorporated into decision-making, 62.0% (62/100) of providers reported deviating from test recommendations due to insurance-related restrictions. The 24-week ACR50 responses in patients prescribed a therapy in alignment with MSRC results were 39.6%. Patients with a molecular signature of non-response had significantly improved responses to non-TNFi therapies compared with TNFi therapies (ACR50 34.8% vs 10.3%, p-value = 0.05). This indicates that predicted non-responders to TNFi therapies are not nonresponders to other classes of RA targeted therapy. Significant changes were also observed for CDAI, ACR20, ACR70, and for responses at 12 weeks. Adoption of the MSRC into patient care could fundamentally shift treatment paradigms in RA, resulting in substantial improvements in real-world treatment outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Adjuvant treatment decisions in early breast cancer (eBC) have traditionally been driven by risk stratification based on clinical and pathological risk factors. The 21-gene Oncotype DX® assay has been validated as a predictive test for benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy (CT), hence assessing its impact in clinical decisions is of high interest. The objective of this study was to estimate the rate of adjuvant treatment decision modification impacted by the Recurrence Score® result, and the consequent budget impact. Methods: The study was a multicentre, prospective, real-life experience in Lombardy (Italy) including consecutive patients with T1–T3, N0–N1a, and ER+/HER2-eBC with clinical-pathologic “intermediate risk” of relapse. The change in treatment recommendations was assessed before and after availability of Recurrence Score result. A budget model evaluated the implications of 21-gene testing in the study population. Results: The overall proportion of CT recommendations was reduced from 24.6% to 15.2% after 21-gene testing, with a major impact in patients initially considered for CT plus hormone therapy (CHT). In these patients, the total budget was reduced, leading to a net saving of -€81,017. The greater the physician propensity to prescribe CHT, the higher the potential savings for the health system from sparing CT in most tested patients. Conclusions: Our real-life experience suggests that all intermediate-risk ER+/HER2-eBC patients who are initially deemed candidates for CHT should be tested with the 21-gene test. The potential to spare CT in at least half of them offers relevant advantages for patients and national health services.

Purpose: Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor (ICI) regimens are approved for first-line treatment of metastatic nononcogene-driven NSCLC. Guidelines do not differentiate which patients with PD-L1 ≥ 50% should receive ICI monotherapy. The clinically validated PROphet NSCLC plasma proteomic-based test is designed to inform this therapeutic decision., Methods: One hundred oncologists were presented with 3 "virtual" metastatic NSCLC cases with PD-L1 scores and asked to recommend an approved first-line regimen. They then watched an online educational webinar on the PROphetNSCLC test. Postwebinar, the same cases were represented with the addition of a PROphet result, and oncologists again recommended a first-line regimen. Responses were compared to assess the impact on first-line treatment selection., Results: Treatment recommendation changed in 39.6% of PROphet-tested cases, with 93% of physicians changing at least 1 case. In the PD-L1 ≥ 50% group, 89% of physicians changed their recommendation, followed by 77%, in PD-L1 < 1%, and 36% in PD-L1 1% to 49%. ​In the PD-L1 ≥ 50%, PROphet POSITIVE group, the recommendation for ICI monotherapy increased from 60% to 89%. ​For the PD-L1 ≥ 50%, PROphet NEGATIVE group, the recommendation for monotherapy dropped from 60% to 9%. In the PD-L1 < 1%, PROphet NEGATIVE group, 35% of patients were spared toxicity from ICI compared to 11% in PROphet untested cases., Conclusion: Adding PROphet to PD-L1 expression impacted therapeutic decision making in first-line NSCLC. PROphet identifies those predicted to have an overall survival benefit from ICI monotherapy versus combination versus chemotherapy, improving the probability of efficacy and reducing toxicity for some patients., Competing Interests: Disclosure DRG receives institutional research grants from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Roche-Genentech, and Merck and consultant and/or advisory board fees from AstraZeneca, Roche-Genentech, Guardant Health, IO Biotech, Oncocyte, Lilly, Merck, and Novartis. He is the Chief Medical Officer for the International Society of Liquid Biopsy. JS receives consultant and/or advisory board fees from AstraZeneca, Jazz, Janssen, Cardinal Health, Cancer ExpertNow, Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, and Sanofi. ES receives consultant and/or advisory board fees from AstraZeneca, Regeneron, Sanofi, Bristol Myers Squibb, Abbvie, Janssen, OncoHost, Amgen, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Genentech, G1 Therapeutics, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Mirati, Pfizer, Takeda, Sobi, Coherus, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, and Novartis. MH, YB, CL, IS, and YE, are employees of OncoHost. KM reports consulting fees from OncoHost, Foundation Medicine, Oncocyte, and Aclaris Therapeutics. ARB reports consulting fees from OncoHost., (Copyright © 2024 OncoHost. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Results from TAILOR-X suggest that up to 70% of hormone receptor-positive (HR+) node-negative (N0) ESBC patients (pts) may avoid chemotherapy (CT) with RS ≤ 25. We assess clinical and economic impacts of RS testing on treatment using real-world data. Methods: From October 2011 to February 2019, a retrospective, cross-sectional observational study was conducted of HR+ N0 ESBC pts who had RS testing in Ireland. Pts were classified low risk (RS ≤ 25) and high risk (RS > 25). Clinical risk was calculated. Data were collected via electronic patient records. Cost data were supplied by the National Healthcare Pricing Regulatory Authority. Results: 963 pts. Mean age is 56 years. Mean tumour size is 1.7 cm. 114 (11.8%), 635 (66%), 211 (22%), 3 (0.2%) pts had G1, G2, G3 and unknown G, respectively. 796 pts (82.8%) low RS, 159 (16.5%) high RS and 8 pts (0.7%) unknown RS. 263 pts (26%) were aged ≤ 50 at diagnosis; 117 (45%) had RS 0–15, 63 (24.5%) 16–20, 39 (15.3%) 21–25 and 40 (15.2%) RS 26–100. 4 pts (1.5%) had unknown RS. Post-RS testing, 602 pts (62.5%) had a change in CT decision; 593 changed to hormone therapy (HT) alone. In total, 262 pts received CT. Of pts receiving CT; 138 (53%) had RS > 25, 124 (47%) had RS ≤ 25. Of pts aged ≤ 50, 153 (58%) had high clinical risk, of whom 28 had RS 16–20. Assay use achieved a 62.5% change in treatment with 73% of pts avoiding CT. This resulted in savings of €4 million in treatment costs. Deducting assay costs, savings of €1.9 million were achieved. Conclusion: Over the 8 years of the study, a 62.5% reduction in CT use was achieved with savings of over €1,900,000. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Genomic tests can guide the decision to administer adjuvant chemotherapy in women with hormone receptor (HR)-positive, Human Epidermal growth Factor 2 (HER2)-negative breast cancer (BC) at intermediate risk of recurrence. We assessed the decision-making and economic impact of the Prosigna test in a real-life setting. Methods: Retrospective cohort study of HR + , HER2- BC patients managed from 2016 to 2020, potential candidates for adjuvant chemotherapy, at intermediate risk of recurrence, in whom a Prosigna test was performed according to contemporary guidelines. The additional cost of chemotherapy over one year in terms of direct medical and non-medical costs was estimated in this study to be €9,737 (derived from a previous study, NCT02813317). The cost of the Prosigna test, as defined by the reimbursement system, was €1,849. Results: Among the 809 patients included in this study, 2.3 Prosigna tests had to be performed to avoid adjuvant chemotherapy for one patient. The number of tests that had to be performed to avoid chemotherapy for one patient was higher for patients with grade 3 tumors and pN1mic axillary node involvement and lower for grade 1 tumors or in the absence of axillary node involvement (pN0), but did not vary according to the 10-year overall survival gain predicted by the Predict online test. The cost saving related to withholding of adjuvant chemotherapy for one patient on the basis of the Prosigna test results was €5,485. Conclusion: We present one of the largest cohorts of HR + , HER2- BC patients at intermediate risk of recurrence, in whom a Prosigna test was used to guide the adjuvant therapy decision in a real-life setting, resulting in a 44% decrease in the indication for chemotherapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

CanAssist Breast (CAB) has thus far been validated on a retrospective cohort of 1123 patients who are mostly Indians. Distant metastasis–free survival (DMFS) of more than 95% was observed with significant separation (P < 0.0001) between low-risk and high-risk groups. In this study, we demonstrate the usefulness of CAB in guiding physicians to assess risk of cancer recurrence and to make informed treatment decisions for patients. Of more than 500 patients who have undergone CAB test, detailed analysis of 455 patients who were treated based on CAB-based risk predictions by more than 140 doctors across India is presented here. Majority of patients tested had node negative, T2, and grade 2 disease. Age and luminal subtypes did not affect the performance of CAB. On comparison with Adjuvant! Online (AOL), CAB categorized twice the number of patients into low risk indicating potential of overtreatment by AOL-based risk categorization. We assessed the impact of CAB testing on treatment decisions for 254 patients and observed that 92% low-risk patients were not given chemotherapy. Overall, we observed that 88% patients were either given or not given chemotherapy based on whether they were stratified as high risk or low risk for distant recurrence respectively. Based on these results, we conclude that CAB has been accepted by physicians to make treatment planning and provides a cost-effective alternative to other similar multigene prognostic tests currently available. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: EMIT-1 is a national, observational, single-arm trial designed to assess the value of the Prosigna, Prediction Analysis of Microarray using the 50 gene classifier (PAM50)/Risk of Recurrence (ROR), test as a routine diagnostic tool, examining its impact on adjuvant treatment decisions, clinical outcomes, side-effects and cost-effectiveness. Here we present the impact on treatment decisions., Patients and Methods: Patients with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative pT1-pT2 lymph node-negative early breast cancer (EBC) were included. The Prosigna test and standard histopathology assessments were carried out. Clinicians' treatment decisions were recorded before (pre-Prosigna) and after (post-Prosigna) the Prosigna test results were disclosed., Results: Of 2217 patients included, 2178 had conclusive Prosigna results. The pre-Prosigna treatment decisions were: no systemic treatment (NT) in 27% of patients, endocrine treatment alone (ET) in 38% and chemotherapy (CT) followed by ET (CT + ET) in 35%. Post-Prosigna treatment decisions were 25% NT, 51% ET and 24% CT + ET, respectively. Adjuvant treatment changed in 28% of patients, including 21% change in CT use. Among patients assigned to CT + ET pre-Prosigna, 45% were de-escalated to ET post-Prosigna. Of patients assigned to ET, 12% were escalated to CT + ET and 8% were de-escalated to NT; of those assigned to NT, 18% were escalated to ET/CT + ET. CT was more frequently recommended for patients aged ≤50 years. In the subgroup with pT1c-pT2 G2 and intermediate Ki67 (0.5-1.5× local laboratory median Ki67 score), the pre-Prosigna CT treatment decision varied widely across hospitals (3%-51%). Post-Prosigna, the variability of CT use was markedly reduced (8%-24%). The correlation between Ki67 and ROR score within this subgroup was poor (r = 0.25-0.39). The median ROR score increased by increasing histological grade, but the ROR score ranges were wide (for G1 0-79, G2 0-90, G3 16-94)., Conclusion: The Prosigna test result changed adjuvant treatment decisions in all EBC clinical risk groups, markedly decreased the CT use for patients categorized as higher clinical risk pre-Prosigna and reduced treatment decision discrepancies between hospitals., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Copyright of Oncologist is the property of Oxford University Press / USA and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Purpose: The WSG-PRIMe Study prospectively evaluated the impact of the 70-gene signature MammaPrint® (MP) and the 80-gene molecular subtyping assay BluePrint® on clinical therapy decisions in luminal early breast cancer. Methods: 452 hormone receptor (HR)-positive and HER2-negative patients were recruited (N0, N1). Physicians provided initial therapy recommendations based on clinicopathological factors. After prospective risk classification by MammaPrint/BluePrint was revealed, post-test treatment recommendations and actual treatment were recorded. Decisional Conflict and anxiety were measured by questionnaires. Results: Post-test switch (in chemotherapy (CT) recommendation) occurred in 29.1% of cases. Overall, physician adherence to MP risk assessment was 92.3% for low-risk and 94.3% for high-risk MP scores. Adherence was remarkably high in "discordant" groups: 74.7% of physicians initially recommending CT switched to CT omission following low-risk MP scores; conversely, 88.9% of physicians initially recommending CT omission switched to CT recommendations following high-risk MP scores. Most patients (99.2%) recommended to forgo CT post-test and 21.3% of patients with post-test CT recommendations did not undergo CT; among MP low-risk patients with pre-test and post-test CT recommendations, 40% did not actually undergo CT. Luminal subtype assessment by BluePrint was discordant with IHC assessment in 34% of patients. Patients' State Anxiety scores improved significantly overall, particularly in MP low-risk patients. Trait Anxiety scores increased slightly in MP high risk and decreased slightly in MP low-risk patients. Conclusions: MammaPrint and BluePrint test results strongly impacted physicians' therapy decisions in luminal EBC with up to three involved lymph nodes. The high adherence to genetically determined risk assessment represents a key prerequisite for achieving a personalized cost-effective approach to disease management of early breast cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Adjuvant chemotherapy shows clear benefits in HER2-positive and triple-negative breast cancer (BC). Its benefits are less universal in BCs expressing hormone receptors. The 21-gene Oncotype DX® Breast Recurrence Score test was designed for HR+, HER2– early-stage BC before decision on adjuvant chemotherapy. Its validity and utility was demonstrated prospectively across multiple studies. The observational study PONDx characterized the use of Oncotype DX® Breast in routine practice in France and evaluated its decision impact. Of 882 ER-positive BC patients (67% postmenopausal), most (79%) had N0/Nmic node involvement, grade 2 tumors (68%), tumor size 1–5 cm (88%), and ductal histology (78%). BCs with histopathologically elevated recurrence risk included grade 3: 18%; N1: 21%; Ki67 > 20%: 31%. Recurrence Score results by prognostic category were: <18: 54%, 18–30: 36%; >30: 10%. Compared to recommendations before individual availability of the score, results prompted net absolute reductions in chemotherapy recommendations of 36% (total population), and 29% (grade 3 and/or Ki67 > 20% histologies). Decisions reflected prognostic implications: in the Recurrence Score <18 category, 95% of patients received recommendations of hormonal therapy only, in the >30 category, 97.5% were recommended additional chemotherapy; 95% followed the final recommendations of their physicians. The Recurrence Score provides independent predictive and prognostic information in ER + N0/N1 early BC, including high-risk subgroups. PONDx further characterizes the population where the test is beneficial in real-life use and fits current clinical needs. Oncotype DX® Breast enables relevant net reductions in chemotherapy use, sparing patients from serious toxicities. Its therapeutic implications are highly accepted by physicians and patients. Highlights • The results of PONDx confirm a pronounced decision impact in early breast cancer and define the relevant target population for the use of the test in real-life practice according to physician's appraisal. • The test leads to a relevant net reduction in adjuvant chemotherapy recommendations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Accurate staging of patients with prostate cancer (PCa) is important for therapeutic decision‐making. Relapse after surgery or radiotherapy of curative intent is not uncommon and, in part, represents a failure of staging with current diagnostic imaging techniques to detect disease spread. Prostate‐specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron‐emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) is a new whole‐body scanning technique that enables visualization of PCa with high contrast. The hypotheses of this study are that: (i) PSMA‐PET/CT has improved diagnostic performance compared with conventional imaging; (ii) PSMA‐PET/CT should be used as a first‐line diagnostic test for staging; (iii) the improved diagnostic performance of PSMA‐PET/CT will result in significant management impact; and (iv) there are economic benefits if PSMA‐PET/CT is incorporated into the management algorithm. Objectives and Methods: The proPSMA trial is a prospective, multicentre study in which patients with untreated high‐risk PCa will be randomized to gallium‐68‐PSMA‐11 PET/CT or conventional imaging, consisting of CT of the abdomen/pelvis and bone scintigraphy with single‐photon emission CT/CT. Patients eligible for inclusion are those with newly diagnosed PCa with select high‐risk features, defined as International Society of Urological Pathology grade group ≥3 (primary Gleason grade 4, or any Gleason grade 5), prostate‐specific antigen level ≥20 ng/mL or clinical stage ≥T3. Patients with negative, equivocal or oligometastatic disease on first line‐imaging will cross over to receive the other imaging arm. The primary objective is to compare the accuracy of PSMA‐PET/CT with that of conventional imaging for detecting nodal or distant metastatic disease. Histopathological, imaging and clinical follow‐up at 6 months will define the primary endpoint according to a predefined scoring system. Secondary objectives include comparing management impact, the number of equivocal studies, the incremental value of second‐line imaging in patients who cross over, the cost of each imaging strategy, radiation exposure, inter‐observer agreement and safety of PSMA‐PET/CT. Longer‐term follow‐up will also assess the prognostic value of a negative PSMA‐PET/CT. Outcome and Significance: This trial will provide data to establish whether PSMA‐PET/CT should replace conventional imaging in the primary staging of select high‐risk localized PCa, or whether it should be used to provide incremental diagnostic information in selected cases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To evaluate the impact of the 12-gene Colon Cancer Recurrence Score Assay-a clinically validated prognosticator in stage II colon cancer after surgical resection-on adjuvant treatment decisions in T3 mismatch repair proficient (MMR-P) stage II colon cancer in clinical practice.Methods: This retrospective analysis included all patients with T3 MMR-P stage II colon cancer (Clalit Health Services members) with Recurrence Score results (time frame January 2011 to May 2012). Treatment recommendations pretesting were compared with the treatments received. Changes were categorized as decreased (to observation alone/removing oxaliplatin from the therapy) or increased (from observation alone/adding oxaliplatin to the therapy) intensity.Results: The analysis included 269 patients; 58%, 32%, and 10% of the values were in the low (<30), intermediate (30-40), and high (≥41) score groups, respectively. In 102 patients (38%), treatment changed post-testing (decreased/increased intensity 76/26 patients). The overall impact was decreased chemotherapy use (45.0% to 27.9%; P < 0.001). Treatment changes occurred in all score groups, but more frequently in the high (change rate 63.0%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 42.3%-80.6%) than in the intermediate (30.6%; 95% CI 21.0%-41.5%) and low (37.6%; 95% CI 30.0%-45.7%) score groups. The direction of the change was consistent with the assay result, with increased intensity more common in higher score values and decreased intensity more common in lower score values.Conclusions: Testing significantly affected adjuvant treatment in T3 MMR-P stage II colon cancer in clinical practice. The study is limited by its design, which compared treatment recommendations pretesting to actual treatments received post-testing, lack of a control group, and nonassessment of confounding factors that may have affected treatment decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives To evaluate the impact of a genomic classifier ( GC) test for predicting metastasis risk after radical prostatectomy ( RP) on urologists' decision-making about adjuvant treatment of patients with high-risk prostate cancer. Subjects and Methods Patient case history was extracted from the medical records of each of the 145 patients with pT3 disease or positive surgical margins ( PSMs) after RP treated by six high-volume urologists, from five community practices. GC results were available for 122 (84%) of these patients. US board-certified urologists ( n = 107) were invited to provide adjuvant treatment recommendations for 10 cases randomly drawn from the pool of patient case histories. For each case, the study participants were asked to make an adjuvant therapy recommendation without (clinical variables only) and with knowledge of the GC test results. Recommendations were made without knowledge of other participants' responses and the presentation of case histories was randomised to minimise recall bias. Results A total of 110 patient case histories were available for review by the study participants. The median patient age was 62 years, 71% of patients had pT3 disease and 63% had PSMs. The median (range) 5-year predicted probability of metastasis by the GC test for the cohort was 3.9 (1-33)% and the GC test classified 72% of patients as having low risk for metastasis. A total of 51 urologists consented to the study and provided 530 adjuvant treatment recommendations without, and 530 with knowledge of the GC test results. Study participants performed a mean of 130 RPs/year and 55% were from community-based practices. Without GC test result knowledge, observation was recommended for 57% ( n = 303), adjuvant radiation therapy ( ART) for 36% ( n = 193) and other treatments for 7% ( n = 34) of patients. Overall, 31% (95% CI: 27-35%) of treatment recommendations changed with knowledge of the GC test results. Of the ART recommendations without GC test result knowledge, 40% ( n = 77) changed to observation (95% CI: 33-47%) with this knowledge. Of patients recommended for observation, 13% ( n = 38 [95% CI: 9-17%]) were changed to ART with knowledge of the GC test result. Patients with low risk disease according to the GC test were recommended for observation 81% of the time ( n = 276), while of those with high risk, 65% were recommended for treatment ( n = 118; P < 0.001). Treatment intensity was strongly correlated with the GC-predicted probability of metastasis ( P < 0.001) and the GC test was the dominant risk factor driving decisions in multivariable analysis (odds ratio 8.6, 95% CI: 5.3-14.3%; P < 0.001). Conclusions Knowledge of GC test results had a direct effect on treatment strategies after surgery. Recommendations for observation increased by 20% for patients assessed by the GC test to be at low risk of metastasis, whereas recommendations for treatment increased by 16% for patients at high risk of metastasis. These results suggest that the implementation of genomic testing in clinical practice may lead to significant changes in adjuvant therapy decision-making for high-risk prostate cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents research evaluating the influence of individualized genomic classifier (GC) on the post-operative treatment decisions of patients at high risk of prostate cancer. Research shows the great effect of GC test in changing the adjuvant treatment recommendations of urologists for prostate cancer patients. It concludes that GC test can be considered as guide in adjuvant radiation use.

Background: The use of CGP in guiding treatment decisions in aNSCLC with acquired resistance to ALK TKIs is questionable., Methods: We prospectively assessed the impact of CGP on the decision-making process in ALK-rearranged aNSCLC patients following progression on 2 nd /3 rd -generation ALK TKIs. Physician's choice of the most recommended next-line systemic treatment (NLST) was captured before and after receival of CGP results; the percentage of cases in which the NLST recommendation has changed was assessed along with the CGP turnaround time (TAT). Patients were divided into groups: patients in whom the NLST was initiated after (group 1) and before (group 2) receival of the CGP results. Time-to-treatment discontinuation (TTD) and overall survival (OS) with NLST were compared between the groups., Results: In 20 eligible patients (median [m]age 63 years [range, 40-89], females 75%, adenocarcinoma 100%, failure of alectinib 90%, FoundationOne Liquid CDx 80%), CGP has altered NLST recommendation in 30% of cases. CGP findings were as follows: ALK mutations 30% (l1171X 10%, G1202R, L1196M, G1269A, G1202R+l1171N+E1210K 5% each), CDKN2A/B mutation/loss 10%, c-met amplification 5%. CGP mTAT was 2.9 weeks [IQR, 2.4-4.4]. mTTD was 11.3 months (95% CI, 2.1-not reached [NR]) and 5.4 months (95% CI, 2.0-NR) in groups 1 and 2, respectively (p-0.34). mOS was 13.2 months (95% CI, 2.9-NR) and 13.0 months (95% CI, 6.0-NR) in groups 1 and 2, respectively (p-0.86)., Conclusion: CGP has a significant impact on the decision-making process in ALK-rearranged aNSCLC following progression on 2 nd /3 rd -generation ALK TKIs., Competing Interests: Author TS was employed by the company Statistical Consulting Unit. Disclosure (all outside of the submitted work): AR reported personal fees from Roche, Astra Zeneca, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis, Takeda, Elli Lilly, support for attending meetings from Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim. AO reported advisory fees from Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, Astra Zeneca, Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim. Damien Urban reported personal and consulting fees from Roche, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Takeda, Astra Zeneca, Rhenium Oncotest, Bristol Myers Squibb. MM reported consulting fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, Astra Zeneca, MSD, BMS, Abbvie, Takeda, Pomicell. AZ reported grants from Bristol Myers Squibb, personal fees from Roche, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Bristol Myers Squibb, Astra Zeneca, Takeda. JB reported grants and personal fees from Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Bristol Myers Squibb, Astra Zeneca, Roche, Abbvie, Takeda, OncoHost, ImmuneAI, Bayer, Novartis. AA reported research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb, personal and consulting fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, Pfizer, Astra Zeneca, Takeda, Novartis. NP reported research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Foundation Medicine, Gaurdant360, Merk, MSD, Novartis, NovellusDx, Pfizer, Roche, Takeda, IP: Volatile Organic Compounds For Detecting Cell Dysplasia And Genetic Alterations Associated With Lung Cancer, WO2012023138; Breath Analysis of Pulmonary Nodules, US20130150261 A1; Apparatus for treating a target site of a body, WO/2015/059646 - all outside of the submitted work. ED reported grants from Astra Zeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, Astra Zeneca, Pfizer, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Takeda, Sanofi, Merck Serono, Medison Pharma, Janssen Israel- all outside of the submitted work. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Raphael, Onn, Holtzman, Dudnik, Urban, Kian, Cohen, Moskovitz, Zer, Bar, Rabinovich, Grynberg, Oedegaard, Agbarya, Peled, Shochat and Dudnik.)

Purpose: The use of the 21-gene Recurrence Score (RS) assay is emerging in node-positive estrogen receptor (ER)+ HER2-negative breast cancer (BC), particularly as initial data from the RxPONDER trial are now available. We investigated the impact of the RS result on adjuvant treatment decisions in such patients., Patients and Methods: This prospective, multi-center study enrolled patients with ER+, HER2-negative BC and 1 to 3 positive nodes (microscopic [N1mi] or macroscopic [N1]). Treating oncologists documented treatment recommendations/plan before and after knowing the RS result. Sample size was determined assuming an overall treatment change rate (from chemohormonal therapy [CHT] to hormone therapy [HT] and vice-versa) of ≥30%., Results: The study included 84 patients across 5 regional cancer centers, of whom 82 underwent 21-gene testing (77%, N1 disease; 63% grade 2 tumors). Of the RS-tested patients, 60%, 33%, and 7% had RS 0 to 17, 18 to 30, and 31 to 100, respectively. In 43 patients (52%), treatment changed post-RS: 40 patients (49%) from CHT to HT and 3 patients (4%) from HT to CHT. The net change was a 45% reduction in chemotherapy use. Treatment recommendation changes were consistent with the RS result. In RS 0 to 17 patients, the only documented change was from CHT to HT (27 patients). In RS 18-30 patients, change was noted in both directions (CHT-to-HT, 13 patients; HT-to-CHT, 3 patients). No treatment change was reported for the RS 31 to 100 patients, all of whom were recommended CHT pre-testing., Conclusion: Our results support the clinical utility of the RS assay in ER+ HER2-negative BC with 1 to 3 positive nodes., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Adjuvant chemotherapy shows clear benefits in HER2-positive and triple-negative breast cancer (BC). Its benefits are less universal in BCs expressing hormone receptors. The 21-gene Oncotype DX ® Breast Recurrence Score test was designed for HR+, HER2- early-stage BC before decision on adjuvant chemotherapy. Its validity and utility was demonstrated prospectively across multiple studies. The observational study PONDx characterized the use of Oncotype DX ® Breast in routine practice in France and evaluated its decision impact. Of 882 ER-positive BC patients (67% postmenopausal), most (79%) had N0/Nmic node involvement, grade 2 tumors (68%), tumor size 1-5 cm (88%), and ductal histology (78%). BCs with histopathologically elevated recurrence risk included grade 3: 18%; N1: 21%; Ki67 > 20%: 31%. Recurrence Score results by prognostic category were: <18: 54%, 18-30: 36%; >30: 10%. Compared to recommendations before individual availability of the score, results prompted net absolute reductions in chemotherapy recommendations of 36% (total population), and 29% (grade 3 and/or Ki67 > 20% histologies). Decisions reflected prognostic implications: in the Recurrence Score <18 category, 95% of patients received recommendations of hormonal therapy only, in the >30 category, 97.5% were recommended additional chemotherapy; 95% followed the final recommendations of their physicians. The Recurrence Score provides independent predictive and prognostic information in ER + N0/N1 early BC, including high-risk subgroups. PONDx further characterizes the population where the test is beneficial in real-life use and fits current clinical needs. Oncotype DX ® Breast enables relevant net reductions in chemotherapy use, sparing patients from serious toxicities. Its therapeutic implications are highly accepted by physicians and patients., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Breast cancer is the most common malignancy among Turkish women and the rate of early stage disease is increasing. The Oncotype DX(®) 21-gene assay is predictive of distant recurrence in ER-positive, HER2-negative early breast cancer. We aimed to evaluate the impact of the Recurrence Score(®) (RS) on treatment decisions and physician perceptions in Turkey. We also studied correlations between RS and routine risk factors., Patients and Methods: Ten academic centers across Turkey participated in this prospective trial. Consecutive breast cancer patients with pT1-3, pN0-N1mic, ER-positive, and HER2-negative tumors were identified at multidisciplinary tumor conferences. The initial treatment decision was recorded before tumor blocks were sent to the central laboratory. Each case was brought back to tumor conference after receiving the RS result. Both pre- and post-RS treatment decisions and physician perceptions were recorded on questionnaire forms. Correlations between RS and classical risk factors were evaluated using univariate and multivariate analyses., Results: Ten centers enrolled a total of 165 patients. The median tumor size was 2 cm. Of 165 patients, 57% had low RS, 35% had intermediate RS, and 8% had high RS, respectively. The overall rate of change in treatment decision was 33%. Initially, chemotherapy followed by hormonal therapy (CT+HT) was recommended to 92 (56%) of all patients, which decreased to 61 (37%) patients post-RS assay (p<0.001). Multivariate analysis indicated that progesterone receptor (PR) and Ki-67 scores were significantly related to RS., Conclusion: Oncotype DX testing may provide meaningful additional information in carefully selected patients.

Background: The majority of breast cancer patients in Mexico are treated through the public health system and >80% receive adjuvant chemotherapy. The aim of this prospective study was to characterize the impact of the Oncotype DX assay on adjuvant therapy decision making and the confidence in those decisions amongst public sector physicians in Mexico., Methods: Ninety-eight consecutive patients with ER+, HER2-, stage I-IIIa, N0/N1-3 node-positive breast cancer from the Instituto Nacional de Cancerología were eligible for the study. The primary endpoint was the overall change in treatment recommendations after receiving the assay results., Results: Of 96 patients, 48% received a chemohormonal therapy recommendation prior to testing. Following receipt of results, treatment decisions changed for 31/96 (32%) patients, including 17/62 (27%) node-negative patients and 14/34 (41%) node-positive patients. The proportion of patients with a chemotherapy-based recommendation decreased from 48% pre- to 34% post-assay (P=0.024). 92% of physicians agreed that they were more confident in their treatment recommendation after ordering the assay., Conclusions: These results suggest that use of the 21-gene assay in the Mexican public health system has a meaningful impact on adjuvant treatment recommendations that may reduce the overall use of chemotherapy., (© 2014 The Authors. Journal of Surgical Oncology published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)